Following prior work in the educational literature (e.g., Hoy, Tarter and Kottkamp 1991), we conceptualize as business school health as the extent to which a business school performs well (1) at the technical level (i.e., research and teaching), (2) at the institutional level (i.e., external support and institutional integrity), and (3) at the managerial level (i.e., leadership support, administrative support, and resource support).

Dimensions of Business School Health
  • Research Health: Research faculty at the business school are viewed as leading in their respective fields, publish regularly in leading journals, and assume academic leadership positions.

  • Teaching Health: The business school offers an excellent learning environment with high standards for teaching.

  • External SupportThe business school has very good relationships with alumni and donors, who commit substantial resources to the school.

  • Institutional Integrity: Business school faculty and students uphold the highest standards of integrit

  • Leadership SupportThe business school has a high-quality leadership team and clear faculty performance standards.

  • Administrative SupportThe business school has professional administrative staff that is supportive to faculty, students, and visitors.

  • Resource SupportThe business school has adequate facilities and resources to help faculty effectively perform their work.

Psychometric Properties

Overall, our business school health scale exhibits good psychometric properties.


Our business school health scale is a 21-item scale (see the table below), which we created by adapting earlier measures of Hoy, Tarter and Kottkamp (1991) to the business school context. We conducted a principal component analysis with varimax rotation on this scale. The scree plot suggested a seven-component structure with all items loading on their expected theoretical dimensions . The seven components accounted for 82.6% of the total variance with the largest component accounting for 12.7% of the total variance. All loadings were greater than the recommended threshold of .60 with the lowest being .73 (see the table below). Next, we conducted a seven-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; χ2 = 251.08; p <.01; 168 df). The fit indices for this model meet the recommended standards (CFI =.98, NNFI = .97, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04). 

All factor loadings were positive, highly significant (minimum z-value was 18.95; all p-values below 0.01), and at least ten times as large as the standard errors establishing convergent validity (Gerbing and Anderson 1988). For all pairs of business school health dimensions, the square root of the average variance extracted for both dimensions was greater than their correlation, which demonstrates acceptable discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981).


All seven dimensions show composite reliabilities above the recommended threshold of .70 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988), with the composite reliability for each scale as follows: (1) research health (CR = .92), (2) teaching health (CR = .82(, external support (CR = .93), institutional integrity (CR = .81), leadership support (CR = .89), administrative support (CR = .84), and resource support (CR = .80).


BSH scale.JPG
Administering the scale

The BSH scale was originally developed and administered as an anonymous survey conducted among research faculty in business schools. Anonymity is critical to ensure trustworthy scores. The scale takes about five minutes to complete. Even though not developed for such populations, the BSH scale may be adapted for other to measure business school health according to the perceptions of other stakeholders, such as business school administrators, teaching faculty, students, alumni and donors.

The scale should be introduced as follows: "The following are statements about your school. Please indicate the extent to which each statement characterizes your school from not at all to extremely" (1 = Not at all, 2 = A little bit, 3 = Moderately, 4 = Quite a bit, 5 = Extremely).

To download a copy of the BSH scale please click below.


Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74–94.

Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (Feb.), 39-50.

Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), “An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and its Assessment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186-192.

Hoy, Wayne K., C. John Tarter, and Robert B. Kottkamp (1991). Open Schools/Healthy Schools: Measuring Organizational Climate. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.